Whether the period of application for authorization of land readjustment project execution or re-designation disposition is subject to administrative litigation

The extension or re-designation of the application period for authorization for the execution of a land readjustment project by the defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and Busan Metropolitan City Mayor) cannot itself cause a direct change in the specific rights and duties of the people or legal interests, so it cannot be considered the subject of administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 10 of the Land Partition Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Project Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

-Appellee Land Partition Adjustment Association

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu293 delivered on October 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Administrative disposition, which is the object of administrative litigation, refers to an act of an administrative agency as an act under public law, such as establishing a right, ordering obligations, giving rise to other legal effects, and directly related to the rights and obligations of the people. Therefore, in this case, the defendant's extension of the period for applying for authorization to implement a land readjustment project or re-designation disposition in this case cannot be deemed as a disposition that directly causes a direct change in the specific rights and obligations of the people or legal interests, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition

In this regard, the court below's decision that the disposition of this case for which the plaintiff seeks nullification or revocation cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation is just, and it cannot be accepted as a whole on the premise that the disposition of this case is an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young